经济正义:当代伦理学面临的重大课题

正义是一个历史范畴。人类对正义的追求经历了一个由个人正义到社会正义、由政治正义到经济正义的过程。随着经济关系成为支配社会发展的主要力量,经济发展的单向度价值取向的危害日益严重,社会不公正现象在经济领域中日益凸现,经济正义已成为当代社会正义理论中最重要、最具有社会意义的内容和形式。     

是基本的正义原则还是理想的社会管理规则?——G.A.科恩对罗尔斯的建构主义正义观的分析和批判

如何确立一个社会的正义原则是当代政治哲学家普遍关注和激烈争论的一个问题。在这一问题上,哈佛大学的罗尔斯教授在其代表作《正义论》中提出了一种确立正义原则的原初状态理论,这一理论把正义原则等同于原初状态中人们选择的产物。对此,牛津大学G.A.科恩教授提出了针锋相对的反对意见。他在其《拯救正义与平等》一书中论证说,罗尔斯的原初状态理论实际上是把理想的社会管理     

当代西方的另一种正义理论

《哲学动态》1994年第6期刊登了一篇介绍当代西方正义理论的文章,其中介绍了罗尔斯的“社会正义论”和诺齐克、哈耶克的“程序正义论”,这两种学说的代表作都已有了中文译本。在这里,我把不同于上述两种正义论的一种最新的正义学说——迈克尔·瓦尔策(Michael Walzer)的正义论作一简要的述介。     

罗尔斯《正义论》评述

罗尔斯《正义论》评述武汉大学哲学系伦理学专业方永１９７１年出版的《正义论》是美国著名哲学家约翰·罗尔斯的心血之作,它把他近２０年潜心研究社会正义问题的成果发展成一个逻辑严密、条理一贯的体系,并被誉为“二次大战后伦理学、政治哲学领域中最重要的理论著作”...     

“经济时代”与经济正义

人类关于经济正义问题的思考古已有之,但其作为一个时代性的课题和普遍性的话语凸显出来,是与人类历史上经济时代的生成及其殖民化后果紧密关联的。在经济哲学的视阈中,经济正义作为人类对自身经济方式所进行的正义检审和哲学批判,实质上是从人之价值尊严和自由全面发展的原则高度界定经济合理性的终极根据,因此其在根本上是对经济生活世界的意义追问和对人类自身存在根据的价值诉求。而经济时代资本至上与人之价值萎缩的生存悖论性质,为现代经济正义的出场及其现实性提供了深刻的生存论基础,使得其成为超越经济时代强力的思想资源和价值牵引。     

正义理论的新拓展—— 《社会正义论》评介

社会正义理论是一个既古老而又常新的课题。正义问题不仅具有学理价值，而且具有实践意义。倪勇博士的新著《社会正义论》最近已由中央党校出版社出版发行。该书约２０万字，是作者在其博士论文的基础上修改完善而成的。这是一部富有新意的学术专著，它的出版，无疑推动了我国正义理论的研究及其深化。纵观全书，我认为主要有以下几个特点：第一，《社会正义论》在学理探讨上深化并丰富了正义理论的内容，显示了作者开阔的视野和反思能力。以往的正义论研究大都把“正义”同“价值”相联系，把“正义”仅仅看作是“善”的规定。应当承认，这…     

当代西方正义理论

当代西方正义理论顾速在当代西方，正义理论始终是一个核心问题。二次大战后，西方社会在经济与社会发展。资源配置和收入分配、建立福利国家、维护法律秩序等各个方面，都涉及到确立怎样的正义原则的问题，从而引起了政治哲学家认真、反复的讨论。虽然他们所提出的理论不...     

苏格兰情感正义论与马克思的正义观念

马克思的正义论并非主要面向市民社会,而是立足于社会化的人类的实际需要.这种正义论基于政治经济学批判,汲取了启蒙国民经济学家实践先于原则的研究理路,否定了将复杂的正义问题诉诸道德批判的做法,将道义的实现置于经济生产、分配、消费、交换的过程.分析苏格兰情感正义论的内在理路,理解马克思正义论的规范与规律的双重视角,从生产正义与正义的条件角度把握马克思正义论的实质,可以形成马克思正义论的实践逻辑,这对解决当今中国社会公平正义的问题具有重要的启示意义.     

西方正义论伦理学理论形态的变迁

西方近代正义论伦理学形态在诠释"单一物与普遍物统一"的伦理精神的过程中,主要历经了从德性正义论到功利正义论再到公平正义论的价值变迁。以善良意志与道德法则为基本内核的德性正义论所追求的"目的王国"由于仅仅具有朴素的伦理精神气质,所以必然被以幸福与功利原理为核心要素的功利正义论的"原子式地进行探讨"的理性主义伦理观和伦理方式所扬弃,以公平与正义原则为标志的公平正义论尽管难以祛除"集合并列"的理性胎记,但在伦理形态的内容和形式上都进行了否定之否定,实现了德性正义论与功利正义论的整合与超越,成为当代最为重要的正义论伦理学理论形态。     

恩格斯的居住正义思想及其启示

<正>恩格斯在《伍珀河谷的来信》、《英国工人阶级的状况》和《论住宅问题》等论著中,通过对资本主义居住隔离、居住空间极化、居住与人的身份和尊严的揭示与论述,表达了居住正义的思想。居住正义就是住宅的建造与规划与人们的需求相适应,与社会发展相协调,使居住与环境和谐,与主体需求相     

"Psychotherapy" versus "treatment"

Presents a comment on "Psychological treatments" by D. H. Barlow. Barlow proposed that we distinguish between the terms "treatment" and "psychotherapy." The author believes that not only is the distinction unnecessary, but that its implications could have negative consequences for the field of clinical psychology. It is the proposed distinguishing feature that treatments are "specifically tailored to the pathological process that is causing the impairment and distress" that is most problematic. Clinical psychology does not need a distinction that further exacerbates the split between researchers and practitioners.     

"Enmeshment" and "Fusion"

The paper examines two related concepts utilized by two different schools of family therapy. Any family seen to be "enmeshed" is also seen as "fused," and vice versa. The difference in the level of focus, on the "system containing the individuals" (structural) or the "individual in the system" (fusion), determines the difference in therapeutic approach of these two schools.     

“对的”与“好的”

什么是“对的”,和对它的证立,是道德哲学中具有争议性的核心问题,也是效用主义和道义论间的主要差异之所在。统合效用主义对于“好的就是对的”这个陈述有一套完整周延的说法。而道义论对这个问题的证立不够周延或没有足够的说服力。     

"本体论"与"伦理学"--形而上学的两个向度

形而上学有两个密切相关的内在向度,就是本体论向度与伦理学向度.在哲学史上,哲学家们之所以在"追求形而上学"的同时,又总是"反形而上学",并非是人们的形上本性出了问题,而是因为人们总是将形而上学视为单纯的"一维性",总是用一个向度来取代或遮蔽另一个向度.而所谓的"后形而上学思想",也并不是消解了形而上学,而是指形而上学从"本体论向度"转向了"伦理学向度".     

从"管制"到"平衡"--政府与公众理想关系模式的构建及其制度化

论文从行政民主的角度探讨政府与公众之间的理想关系模式及其制度化构建过程 ,将我国在改革之前的政府与公众模式概括为管制模式。论文指出 ,在制度变迁的过程中 ,这一模式日益受到挑战。而在新的制度环境下 ,我国政府与公众的关系模式应该是平衡模式。这一模式的制度化措施包括培育自主的市民社会 ,赋予公众以独立的活动空间 ;促进行政公开 ,建立一个开放负责的政府 ;推进行政法建设 ,抑制行政恣意     

"石狮"、"风水"与"吉祥"

谁都知道,在古老的中国,不管是衙门、宫殿、庙宇的门前,还是豪宅、大户人家的门口,人们都能看到摆着一对石狮。据说,这对石狮子在许多中国人的心目中,它不但是一种气派的象征,而且还是一种被人认为是好的“吉祥物”。如今,旧时的衙门没有了,但遗留下来的宫殿、庙宇的门前,其中有些石狮仍有保存。然而,想像不到的是,这号称“吉祥物”的石狮今天却开始“走”进某些党政机关的大门口,它们(石狮)在那里时时都在保护着这些政府要员“平平安安”、“吉祥如意”。这不仅使我联想起一些极端的报道,有些政府官员为升迁,请算命先生定位,用风水术为政府…     

PREFERRING "HOUSEWIVES" TO "FEMINISTS"

Four studies are described outlining the favorability of attitudes toward women. In Study 1, participants indicated their attitudes toward women and men and their construal of the term "women". The results revealed that women were evaluated more favorably than men, but that male right-wing authoritarians (RWAs) who construed women as referring primarily to feminists were least favorable in their attitudes. In Study 2, participants indicated their attitudes toward both "housewives" and "feminists". The results revealed that feminists were evaluated less favorably than housewives, and that the most negative attitudes toward feminists were expressed by authoritarian men. Study 3 revealed that high-RWA males held more negative symbolic beliefs concerning feminists (i.e., beliefs that feminists failed to promote participants'values) and that these beliefs accounted for variation in attitudes among high RWAs and much of the RWA-attitude relation. Finally, Study 4 revealed that high RWAs perceived greater value dissimilarity between them-selves and feminists. The implications of the findings for future research are discussed.     

"Us" and "Them":

Abstract: In the Aristotelian tradition, politics is a matter of public deliberation over questions of justice and injustice. The Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, has been uniformly hostile to this notion, and it has instead promoted a jingoistic politics of self‐assertion by an America largely identified with the executive branch of its government. This is doubly disturbing, as the executive branch has sought to free itself from international law, multinational commitments, and domestic judicial regulation, even as it has sought to validate itself by demonizing its enemies. This essay draws out the disturbing echoes here of Carl Schmitt's work of the 1920s, in particular of Schmitt's conception of the sovereign as the ungrounded ground of the law and the political as the site of mortal conflict between friend and enemy. The essay argues that Schmitt's position in the twenties, for all of its evident problems, is superior to that of Bush, Wolfowitz, and Ashcroft in at least two senses: Schmitt condemns the idea of waging war for profit and recognizes that such wars will often be disguised as moral crusades waged against the “inhuman”; and he acknowledges that claiming to fight a war for humanity denies one's enemies their humanity, leaving them open to torture and even extermination.